In my Patheos article on why conservative Christians should vote for Romney (despite some of his shortcomings), I argued that voting for "the lesser of two evils" is often required—even if this means accepting "the evil of two lessers."
Some have taken me to task with a short phrase. "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil." The implication is: do not vote for Romney, since he is still evil. This argument fails for several reasons.
First, "the lesser of two evils" means "the better of the two candidates, even though you are not particularly fond of the better candidate." Now, if the options were Hitler or Stalin, I'd vote for neither (and I'm not sure one could claim to find a "lesser evil" here between these titans of tyranny). Voting for Romney is not voting for evil per se; it is, rather, voting for a less-than-ideal candidate who is head and shoulders better than the leftist/statist/authoritarian/economy-destroying/abortion-promoting/America-betraying Obama.
If Obama is re-elected, he would work far more evil than would Romney. The perpetuation of abortion on demand and the funding of abortion on demand by all tax-payers is evil. Over fifty million (50,000,000) unborn humans have already been snuffed out. This is what Obama would give us, among other ills. Therefore, vote for Romney. It is not evil. It is necessary.
Second, by taking the supposed high ground and refusing to vote, one is taking a vote away from the better of the two candidates. Ask yourself: Which candidate is more likely to honor American ideals such as limited civil government, a strong national defense, and religious as well as economic liberty? The answer is Mitt Romney. Voting for him is not evil. It is necessary.
As Schaeffer said, we often need to become cobelligents for good in the social realm, even when we disagree with them theologically. Now is time to apply this truth.